A promotion interview cannot be directed before determining whether scheme posts form part of the regular cadre.

The Appellant-Institute appointed Respondent No. 1 as Assistant Professor (Psychiatry) under the Centre of Excellence (CoE) Scheme, with effect from 22 November 2021.

After the GNCTD implemented a revised Assessment Promotion Scheme (Revised APS), Respondent No. 1 applied for promotion.

Although called for an interview, his interview was deferred amid uncertainty about the CoE Scheme’s funding and continuation.

In his writ petition, the Single Judge directed the authorities to clarify the position and then conduct the interview within specified timelines; a subsequent order extended those timelines.

The Institute appealed, contending that Respondent No. 1’s CoE post was distinct from a regular faculty post and that his eligibility under the Revised APS depended on resolving his cadre status.

1. Whether Respondent No. 1’s appointment to a CoE Scheme post brought him within the cadre covered by the Revised APS, including whether the post formed part of the regular cadre or its appointees had been absorbed into the regular establishment.

2. Whether the interview call, without a determination of cadre status and substantive eligibility, justified directing the Institute to proceed with Respondent No. 1’s promotion interview.

The judgment cited no statute or judicial precedent.

It applied the principles that an interview call is distinct from substantive eligibility for promotion, and that parity in pay or service conditions does not, by itself, establish a common cadre or absorption into a regular establishment.

A claim under a promotion scheme may depend on whether the employee belongs to the cadre covered by that scheme.

The Court held that Respondent No. 1’s CoE appointment and the Institute’s call for an interview did not establish that he belonged to the regular faculty cadre or was eligible under the Revised APS.

Because cadre identity and absorption were central to his claim, those questions had to be resolved before an interview was directed.

The Single Judge’s orders proceeded on the mistaken assumption that the interview call itself entitled Respondent No. 1 to continue under the Scheme.

The pending application was disposed of, with no order as to costs.